SHAILESH KALWADIA (HUF) ,UJJAIN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER BPL-C-(91)(1), UJJAIN

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

price of the penny stock company has not been rigged up. The appellant failed to establish that exit providers are not bogus. The appellant grossly failed to prove that the statements given by the entry operators are not correct. Further, during the appellate proceeding, the Appellant could not controvert any of the findings made by the AO in the assessment

THE ACIT, 3(1), BHOPAL vs. SHRI SEEMA NAGPAL, BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

154 be held to be high and unreasonable and be suitably reduced. 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s

SHRI PAWAN NAGPAL,BHOPAL vs. THE ACIT 3(1), BHOPAL

In the result, both appeal of the Assessee in ITANo

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year 2009-10 Shri Pawan Nagpal Acit-3(1) A-4, Housing Board Colony Vs. Bhopal Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3120A Assessment Year 2009-10 Acit-3(1) Smt. Seema Nagpal Bhopal Vs. P/O M/S. Active Motors A-4, Housing Board Colony Kohefiza, Bhopal (Appellant) (Respondent ) Pan No.Aawpn3119R For Assessees Shri C.P. Rawka, Ca For Department Shri Rajeeb Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 14.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 15.03.2019

154 be held to be high and unreasonable and be suitably reduced. 4. The appellant crave leave to add, amend or alter any ground of appeal before or during the course of appellate proceedings. 2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s

M/S SHREE BALAJI NEEMUCH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.,NEEMUCH vs. THE DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

U/s. 80IA.” 6. According to the Ld. AO the assessee has not fulfilled the condition for developer as prescribed under the statute and the assessee has been found to be a work contractor and not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Disallowance of Rs.55,44,563/- was added to the total income of the assessee under

M/S SHRI BALAJI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ,NEEMUCH vs. DCIT, RATLAM

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

U/s. 80IA.” 6. According to the Ld. AO the assessee has not fulfilled the condition for developer as prescribed under the statute and the assessee has been found to be a work contractor and not eligible for deduction under Section 80IA(4) of the Act. Disallowance of Rs.55,44,563/- was added to the total income of the assessee under